N.S.G. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

N.S.G. v. State

678 So. 2d 4, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8315, 1996 WL 434530

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 1996

DocketNo. 95-4554

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 678 So. 2d 4 (N.S.G. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

N.S.G. v. State, 678 So. 2d 4, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8315, 1996 WL 434530 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, Judge.

The juvenile appellant challenges an order of disposition by which she was found guilty of various charges and placed in a juvenile program. She argues that the judge should have granted her motions for judgment of acquittal. Although we conclude that the trial judge properly denied the motions as to the charges of burglary of a structure and criminal mischief, we conclude that the motions should have been granted as to the two charges of burglary of a dwelling. The evidence was that the appellant spray painted unenclosed exterior areas of the two dwellings, but there was no suggestion that she entered the dwellings or any enclosed curti-lage. Accordingly, burglary of the dwellings was not proven. See State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1995).

The order of disposition is therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part, and this case is remanded for entry of a new order.

MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ALLEN, Judge.

The juvenile appellant challenges an order of disposition by which she was found guilty of various charges and placed in a juvenile program. She argues that the judge should have granted her motions for judgment of acquittal. Although we conclude that the trial judge properly denied the motions as to the charges of burglary of a structure and criminal mischief, we conclude that the motions should have been granted as to the two charges of burglary of a dwelling. The evidence was that the appellant spray painted unenclosed exterior areas of the two dwellings, but there was no suggestion that she entered the dwellings or any enclosed curti-lage. Accordingly, burglary of the dwellings was not proven. See State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1995).

The order of disposition is therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part, and this case is remanded for entry of a new order.

MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

678 So. 2d 4, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8315, 1996 WL 434530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nsg-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack